The 1st Report by Drennan was made 11 months after the Order was made and is riddled with false and misleading statements:-
Page 2 (Paragraph E): The showrooms are not situated at 68/69 Smithfield but at 61/65 Smithfield.
Page 2 (Paragraph G): This is completely misleading and false. Freddie owned 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 and 69 Smithfield and 1, 3, 5, 9 and 11 Francis Street.
3/5 Little King Street was sold on 2.4.74 for £7,500. The monies were received by Tughan & Co., in February and March 1974 but were not credited to the patient until 29.3.77, three years later. During the period the premises were on the market an explosion occurred and the patient was awarded £5,981.00 compensation by the Northern Ireland Office. This was paid on 6.10.76 but the patient was not credited with the sum until 29.3.77, almost six months later.
Sale agreements and deeds of conveyancing are forged.
Properties at 62 - 69 Smithfield and 1 - 11 Francis Street were not part of this sale as stated.
Payments were made in 1982 to the Inland Revenue in respect of years 1980/1981 - £187.50 and 1981/1982 - £250.50. There are no vouchers or copy vouchers in respect of these Revenue payments.
Were proper income tax returns made on behalf of the patient during the period covered by both the Official Solicitors accounts and during the period 1972/79?
What interest has the Official Solicitor claimed on behalf of the patient in respect of monies debited from him in error or by reason of undue delay in crediting him of monies he was entitled to?
Why take action against my sister, Betty Hamilton, who was at the time medically unstable?
Why not take any action against the alleged perpetrators of the crimes?
Why did the first Official Solicitor not rreport the alleged criminal actions to the police?
Forgery of sale agreements,
Forgery of deeds of conveyance,
Misappropriation of monies by Tughan & Co,
false accounting by Tughan & Co.
How can the Official Solicitor's Report and Accounts for the period 11th January 1979 to 31st March 1981 be accepted by the Court when they are allegedly so obviously false and misleading? They are erroneous, arithmetically and chronologically.
Voucher 1 to 7 - Deposit Book. It is forgery and false accounting to present this account in a manner which purports that the account was in the name of John G Drennan, Official Solicitor, since 1977. What was the purpose? Freddie was not put into the Care of the Court until January 1979.
Voucher 9. Amount of £2,544.86 debited in error from Freddie's money by Tughan & Co. Is this misappropriation of money which would not have come to light without the threat of a prosecution? When it was exposed it is then considered just and error. Why not report this criminal offence to the police?
Voucher 50. Gift of £25.00 to Sarah Geddis after only 4 months employment. Is this unjustified and a misappropriation of Freddie's money by the Official Solicitor?
Voucher 48. Why pay Mrs. Geddis £320.00 in lieu of notice? She was detained in hospital at the time for alcoholism and this was the reason for her resigning. She had only been employed [by the Official Solicitor to assist Freddie!] for a period of 5 months. Is this misappropriation of the Patient's money?
Were Mrs. McClelland and Mrs. Geddis self-employed and if not, the question of employer's responsibility for PAYE, National Insurance would have to be considered.
Voucher 68. Having ignored the advantage of the discount why not take full benefit in making settlement at the latest possible time?
Voucher 72. Accounts state Voucher 72 is for £19.14 but the Voucher clearly states £8.10. Where is the difference of £11.04 misappropriated?
Tughan & Co paid £886.00 to Maurice D McHugh in settlement of a claim where a boy by the name of Magee accidently fell through the roof of premises at 3-5 Little King Street.
A third party risk policy of insurance was in force in respect of these premises and therefore monies should not have been taken from Freddie's account. A renewal premium had been paid on 11th April 1972 to Phoenix Assurance Co. Again an alleged misappropriation of monies by Tughan & Co. [I must try to check up and see if a claim was also made through the Phoenix Assurance Co. It would not surprise me if this was the case.]
It is suggested that £24,893.68 was paid towards a bridging loan. Where are the details of the account recorded or referred to by the Official Solicitor?
Why has the lodgements of £35,000 and £15,000 lodged in N.I.I.B. in an account in the name of Gilpin & Wright the alleged authors of these serious crimes never been brought to the attention of the police?
What steps have been taken by the Official Solicitor to recover the various properties which have allegedly been stolen from Freddie?
What is the criminal liability of persons to witness the forged signature of Freddie on the various deeds and agreements?
Re: 14 Castlehill Road.
Reports state the house was sold on 31st March 1976 when in fact it was sold 14th November 1975. The completion date was 16th February 1976, but Freddie was not credited with the balance until 4th April 1977. Instructions to sell were given by Tughan & Co and also Gilpin. The patient gave no instructions.
14/16 King Street and 12/14 Marquis Street.
Ground rents £50.00 per annum.
There is a record that Mr Drennan held the title deeds on 15th Dceember 1979. We have no record of the £50.00 rent having been received over the period since 1972 or any disposal of the asset.
3/5 Little King Street - store & garage.
Sold on 2nd April 1974 for £7,500, allegedly, to Dobbin. Freddie was not credited with the proceeds of the sale until 29th March 1977. Is this misappropriation? No interest was paid or requested by the Official Solicitor. Maybe this was because Dobbin DID NOT purchase this property but it was purchased by another solicitor who did the conveyancing, Mr. Morris!!!
The N.I.O. claim was settled on 6th October 1976 but Freddie did not receive the money until 29th March 1977 - again misappropriation!
Sale agreements and deeds appear to be forged and forged signatures witessed.
Charles Gilpin gave the instructions to sell. This property has since been re-sold. Who purchased it and when?
Have these transactions been registered with the registrar of Deeds?
4 Norwood Gardens.
Pruchase price £23,500. Mr Gilpin was paid a fee of £46.00 on this purchase. Why?
Who acted as agent for the sale of this property to Freddie? How long had the house been on the market prior to Freddie making the purchase?
5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19 and 21 Winetavern Street.
Nine tenanted terrace shops with dwellings.
Sold 16th February 1978 for £17,000. Instructions to sell by Gilpin, agent was Mr P Simpson of Blessington, Fair & Co. Freddie received no monies for this sale but £15,083 was credited to the N.I.I.B. on 12th October to an account in the name of Chares Gilpin and Herbert Wright, his solicitor.
In contrast to the above, the report of the Official Solicitor shows an annual rent income of £556.52 but there is no record in the accounts of what happened to these premises or of collection of rent since 1972.
Those concerned with and in charge of the patient have a duty under section 5, Criminal Law Act 1967. Are they in breach of this Act?
It is recognised by senior members of the medical profession and the Law Society that Freddie was incapable of managing his affairs since 1972 and could not have understood the running of bank accounts or dealings in properties. It must therefore stand that all property sales are void and these properties are thus recoverable with full compensation from those who assumed power to sell same. Freddie could not instruct the sale of any of his properties.
Clear accounts must be set out by Tughan & Co and by the Official Solicitor of receipts of funds on the patients behalf and the.....
Final pages missing at this moment.